K-12 STEM and STEAM Education in the United States: Vision and Best Practices
by Sarah Bush & Kristin Cook - October 12, 2018
This commentary discusses the roots and purpose of both K-12 STEM and STEAM education in the United States. The authors advocate for STEAM as a way to engage more students in mathematics and science, while being guided by the three E's: Equity, Empathy, and Experience.
The acronym STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) first originated from the National Science Foundation in the 1990s and has been used to describe any program, policy, event, or practice associated with one or more of the STEM disciplines (Bybee, 2010a; Bybee, 2010b). The STEM movement in the United States is generally grounded in the need to remain globally competitive, and measures outcomes through various aspects of workforce development. Specifically, in the U.S., there is a shortage of STEM majors and university graduates (National Science Board, 2016), and this problem is compounded both by the projected growth of STEM jobs (Langdon, McKittrick, Beede, Khan, & Doms, 2011; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008) and a shortage of highly qualified STEM educators (Cowan et al., 2016). Further, there now exists a collection of U.S. policy documents and reports on STEM (e.g., National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine, 2010; National Research Council, 2011; National Science Board, 2015; Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2010; U.S. Department of Education, 2016), which collectively make recommendations (as outlined in Bush, in press) centered on K12 STEM education curriculum, standards, programs, and literacy. These recommendations focus on increasing: 1) the number of students pursuing STEM majors and careers (with a focus on underrepresented populations); 2) the recruitment, retention, recognition, preparation, and professional development of STEM teachers; and 3) STEM education funding and research.
Rooted in college and career readiness, global competitiveness, and meeting the needs of industry, the understanding of STEM education and its outcomes has evolved over the past few decades. For example, there are research-based frameworks focused on integrated STEM (Asunda & Mativo, 2016; Bybee, 2013; Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014; Hwang & Taylor, 2016; Kelley & Knowles, 2016; Moore et al., 2014), key K12 standards documents that support the integration of the STEM disciplines (Common Core State Standards, National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010; Next Generation Science Standards, NGSS Lead States, 2013), and empirical research on the effectiveness of integrated STEM (e.g., Becker & Park, 2011; Hurley, 2001; Roehrig, Moore, Wang, & Park, 2012). However, even with all the promise that integrated STEM teaching and learning holds, there remains a lack of interest in STEM subjects, and even more so for diverse learners (PCAST, 2010). Students interested in STEM are primarily motivated by academic and career achievement, and research has pointed to the need for strategies directed toward increasing interest in STEM among underrepresented populations, improving student academic achievement in both science and mathematics, and expanding knowledge of STEM careers and experience through mentors (Holmes, et al., 2018).
Variations of STEM (e.g., STREAM, inclusive of reading; STEMM, inclusive of medicine;
and STEMS, inclusive of the social sciences) have arisen to incorporate various foci and appeal to more types of learners. In all of these variations, the central goal has been to move beyond traditional curricula, in which the disciplines are siloed, and to purposefully and meaningfully cross disciplinary boundaries in order to solve complex and authentic problems. In particular, STEAM (i.e., STEM plus the arts) has begun to take root in the literature base as a form of purposeful integration that holds promise for addressing the lack of student interest in STEM (Ahn & Kwon, 2013; Bush & Cook, 2019b). While K12 STEM and STEAM learning environments share common characteristics, it is important to note that the roots of STEAM are different. While STEM was a reaction to the needs of our nation, STEAM is proactive. STEAM places a focus on 1) solving authentic problems to improve our world; 2) incorporating the arts with a focus on aesthetics, creativity, personal expression, and meaning; and 3) designing solutions for others, which fosters empathy and brings purpose to the need to understand the disciplinary components embedded in the problem (Bush, Karp, Cox, Cook, Albanese, & Karp, 2018; Cook & Bush, 2018). Even so, in K12 schools and districts, STEAM can also be reactive, for example, when a school district decides to create a STEAM lab in response to no longer having art classes to offer students. Specifically, our vision of K12 STEAM education is informed by several reasons to consider adding the A, which include but are not limited to the following.
The arts show appreciation for and recognize the role of beauty, creativity, aesthetics, and emotion in creating a solution to a problem (Bailey, 2016).
Integrating the arts addresses the affective connection as students grasp difficult concepts (Smith & Paré, 2016).
The arts relate to the transformative role empathy can have in STEAM teaching and learning as students engage in developing solutions aligned with making the world a better place (Cook & Bush, 2018).
Integrating the arts provides a vehicle with which to engage more types of learners, specifically students who do not see themselves in STEM (Ahn & Kwon, 2013; Bequette & Bequette, 2012; Wynn & Harris, 2012).
To provide equitable access in our K12 schools, STEAM education should begin early and continue throughout students educational experiences. While only some students will ultimately choose to pursue STEM career paths, each and every student can leave with foundational STEM literacy (as in Bybee, 2010a; Zollman, 2012), that is, an enhanced understanding of science and mathematics, with the confidence and abilities needed to solve complex societal problems. By fusing STEM with the arts, our society benefits from citizens who can employ their knowledge of these disciplines with their creative and innovative selves for the betterment of all.
A VISION FOR K12 STEAM EDUCATION
Our vision of K12 STEAM education is guided by what we call the three Es: Equity, Empathy, and Experience (Bush & Cook, in press). Intentionally listed first, Equity focuses on providing equitable access to STEAM education across classrooms (both traditional and non-traditional settings), schools, and districts for each and every student, and is guided by reform-based practices in mathematics and science education (e.g., NCTMs Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All  and NSTAs A Framework for K12 Science Education ). Through this lens on equitable access, integrated STEAM education 1) provides a context for mathematics and science reform teaching practices to be realized; 2) engages students in reform-based practices such as meaningful discourse, productive struggle, and authentic scientific inquiry; and 3) importantly positions mathematics as essential to problem solving. In essence, creating an environment where inquiries are low floor, high ceiling makes learning accessible, highlights student strengths, and makes students passionate about the problems they are solving (Bush & Cook, in press).
Second, Empathy plays a key role in engaging students in STEAM learning. When inquiries are designed (such as in Bush, Cox, & Cook, 2016; Kaiser, Owen, Cook, & Bush, 2018) that begin by taking students on a journey in which they develop passionate feelings for what it would be like in a certain situation or environment, the buy-in that students develop for solving the problem becomes inspiring (Bush & Cook, in press). This level of enthusiasm often stays with them throughout the inquiry. In Design Thinking, (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford, 2010), empathy is the first step in a non-linear process in which students empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test as they develop solutions to ill-defined yet authentic problems. Framing STEAM inquiries through Design Thinking is a natural fit as Design Thinking seamlessly infuses the empathy component and underscores the importance of creativity in developing solutions (Bush & Cook, 2018).
Finally, lets consider the unique Experience that STEAM education can offer. When students are engaged in STEAM learning, they:
can experience learning that transcends the STEAM disciplines (Choi & Pak, 2006),
do not ask the So what? or When will I ever use this? questions,
engage in meaningful learning of key mathematics and science content and practices, and
become passionate about truly understanding the content they need to know so they can solve the problem.
The STEAM experience is highly individualized as students bring their innovative ideas and unique selves to solving problems under investigation. During these experiences, students are guided by knowledgeable others, including a variety of teachers and other stakeholders (as in Bush & Cook, 2016), who assist them in deep explorations of content and practices to solve authentic problems.
For the past six years, we have been deeply embedded in the research, teacher preparation and development, and practice of integrated K12 STEM and STEAM education, and our thinking has evolved greatly. The purpose of STEAM education, through our lens, is to engage students in the content and practices of mathematics and science in order to deepen their understanding and their abilities to create solutions to authentic problems in our world. A key difference in STEAM experiences is the infusion of the arts, which prioritize expression, personal meaning-making, innovation, and creativity. While it is clear that both STEM and STEAM education are extremely valuable, we advocate for STEAM as a vehicle through which to reach the whole child in ways that build compassion and creativity, foster STEM literacy, and provide access to each and every student.
Ahn, J., & Kwon, N. (2013). An analysis on STEAM education teaching and learning program
on technology and engineering. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 33(4), 708717.
Asunda, P. A., & Mativo, J. (2015). Integrated STEM: A new primer for teaching technology education. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(5), 813.
Bailey, C. (2016). An artists argument for STEAM education. Education Digest, 81, 2123.
Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5/6), 23.
Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM
conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 4047.
Bush, S. B. (in press). National reports on STEM education: What are the implications for K12? In A. Sahin & M. Mohr-Schroeder (Eds.), STEM Education 2.0 Myths and Truths: What has K-12 STEM Education Research Taught Us?
Bush, S. B., & Cook. K. L. (2016). Constructing authentic and meaningful STEAM experiences through university, school, and community partnerships. Journal of STEM Teacher Education. 51(1), 5769.
Bush, S. B., & Cook, K. L. (in press). STEAM from the start: Your standards-based action plan for deepening mathematics and science learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bush, S. B., Cox, R., & Cook, K. L. (2016). Building a prosthetic hand: Math matters. Teaching Children Mathematics. 23(2), 110114.
Bush, S. B., Karp, K. S., Cox, R., Cook, K. L., Albanese, J., & Karp, M. (2018). Design thinking framework: Shaping powerful mathematics. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School. 23(4), e1e5.
Bybee, R. W. (2010a). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 3035.
Bybee, R. W. (2010b). What is STEM education? Science, 329(5995), 996. doi: org/10.1126/science.1194998
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Choi, B., & Pak, A. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical & Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351364.
Cook, K. L., & Bush, S. B. (2018). Design thinking in integrated STEAM learning: Surveying the landscape and exploring exemplars in elementary grades. School Science and Mathematics. 118(34), 93103.
Cowan, J., Goldhaber, D., Hayes, K., & Theobald, R. (2015). Missing elements in the discussion
of teacher shortages. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. CALDER Explainers. Accessed August 2018. http://www.caldercenter.org/missing-elements- discussion-teacher-shortages.
Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford (2010). An Introduction to the Design Thinking: Process Guide. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
Holmes, K., Gore, J., Smith, M., & Lloyd, A. (2018). An integrated analysis of school students
aspirations for STEM Careers: Which student and school factors are most predictive? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 4, 655675.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Hurley, M. M. (2001). Reviewing integrated science and mathematics: The search for evidence and definitions from new perspectives. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 259268.
Hwang, J., & Taylor, J. C. (2016). Stemming on STEM: A STEM education framework for students with disabilities. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 19(1), 4.
Kaiser, L., Owen, K., Cook, K. L., & Bush, S. B. (2018). The giant problem: Using design thinking to explore thermal conductivity. Science and Children. 55(8), 7175.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11).
Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good jobs now and for the future (Report #03-11). Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce.
Moore, T. J., Mathis, C. A., Guzey, S. S., Glancy, A. W., & Siverling, E. A. (2014, October). STEM integration in the middle grades: A case study of teacher implementation. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). Madrid, Spain. doi:10.1109/FIE.2014.7044312
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science Board. (2015). Revisiting the STEM workforce: A companion to science and engineering indicators 2014. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators 2016 (Report No. NSB-2016-1). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2010). Prepare and Inspire: K12 Education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for Americas future. Executive Office of the President of the U.S.A. Retrieved from https://nsf.gov/attachments/117803/public/2a--Prepare_and_Inspire--PCAST.pdf
Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3144.
Smith, C. E., & Paré, J. N. (2016). Exploring Klein bottles through pottery: A STEAM investigation. The Mathematics Teacher, 110, 208214.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). State occupational employment and wage estimates. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/oes/2011/may/oessrcst.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). STEM 2026: A vision for innovation in STEM education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Wynn, T., & Harris, J. (2012). Toward a STEM + arts curriculum: Creating the teacher team. Art Education, 65(5), 4247.
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 1219.